A civil rights group is suing Alabama for allegedly implementing illegal racial quotas in appointments to the Alabama Real Estate Appraisers Board (AREAB).
Promoted by vocal activists, “these mandates threaten the individual right to equality before the law, and without action, the problem is likely to worsen,” the report said.
AREAB, which was created in 1990, licenses and regulates real estate appraisers in Alabama.
Its nine members are appointed by Alabama’s governor. But state law imposes racial criteria on appointments: at least two board members have to be members of a racial minority group. There is currently one opening on the board for a public member, and state law requires the governor to consider race when appointing a person to fill that post.
“It is demeaning, patronizing, un-American, and unconstitutional,” added the complaint.
The defendant, Gov. Kay Ivey, is being sued in her official capacity as Alabama’s governor.
The Republican governor was served with the legal complaint on Feb. 26, according to court documents. Judge R. Austin Huffaker Jr., who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, has been assigned to the case.
AAER’s president Edward Blum said his group is suing the state because “there are unfortunately dozens of government boards and commissions that exclude people because of their race or ethnicity. No one’s race should be used to include them, or exclude them, from service on government boards.”
Mr. Blum is also the founder of Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). SFFA was a litigant in SFFA v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, a 2023 Supreme Court decision that struck down the use of racially discriminatory admissions policies at U.S. colleges.
AAER states in the legal complaint that it has “members who are qualified, ready, willing, and able to be appointed to AREAB, including Member A, a citizen of Alabama who supports public service and property rights and has applied for the vacant public member position on AREAB.”
However, because Member A is not a member of a racial minority group, she is not eligible for the vacant position, the complaint said.
AAER said it is bringing this lawsuit under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “to ensure that every qualified citizen in Alabama has the equal right to serve on AREAB and to ensure that Alabamians are regulated by a board whose members are not selected on the basis of race.”
“So long as this racial quota remains in place, members of the [AAER] who are not racial minorities will never receive equal consideration for openings on AREAB.”
AAER is seeking a declaration from the court that the policy is unconstitutional and an injunction blocking its enforcement.
Glenn Roper, a senior attorney at PLF, which is representing AAER, said, “It’s wrong for the government to make offensive assumptions about people’s experiences and qualifications based on race. And it’s unconstitutional to exclude some citizens from public service with arbitrary race quotas.”
The public isn’t even aware of these racial restrictions in Alabama and other states, which is why PLF released its report on race and sex-based quotas in effect for public board appointments, the lawyer told The Epoch Times.
The quota at AREAB is “unfair and it makes no sense to exclude people from public service because they don’t meet some racial requirements.
“There’s nothing about real estate appraising, or the history of the real estate appraisal industry in Alabama, that requires having racial minorities be [involved in] regulating. That shouldn’t even be a consideration when deciding who to put on this board.”
Mr. Roper said he was optimistic about the case.
“Because racial considerations require the government to satisfy strict scrutiny, I think we have a very strong case, that’s a high bar for the government to clear. Really, they can’t meet either of the prongs. There’s no compelling interest in forcing racial minorities on the board.
“And then even if there was, they haven’t narrowly tailored it like the Supreme Court requires,” he said.
The attorney was referring to the strict scrutiny test that courts use when reviewing legislative or executive branch enactments that have a bearing on constitutional rights. A government interest is deemed compelling when it is essential or necessary, as opposed to a matter of preference, choice, or discretion.
Just last year in the Harvard affirmative action case, the Supreme Court emphasized how stringent the test was and how “we’re not just going to accept the government’s say-so, so they’ve got to provide solid evidence when they want” to consider race-based government policies, Mr. Roper said.
The Epoch Times reached out to the AREAB for comment but had not received a reply as of publication time.
